Teachers, hospital and children's home staff can all be prosecuted for entering into sexual relationships with under-18s in their care. But under current legislation youth workers will not face criminal charges for the same offence.
According to David Whewell, chair of the Confederation of Heads of Young People's Services (Chyps), this needs to change.
Whewell has written to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) asking for the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to be strengthened to ensure youth workers who knowingly undertake sexual relationships with under-18s in their charge are punished.
Tracie Trimmer-Platman, a senior lecturer for youth and community work at the University of East London, believes the oversight is damaging and needs clarification.
Relationship boundaries
"There is a large number of young people now taking up youth and community courses. Because they are young people themselves they feel they relate really well to young people," she explains.
"There is a danger that because they view their relationship almost as a peer leader, there is a potential for relationships to cross over."
In a recent executive meeting, members of Chyps voiced concern that heads of integrated youth services were having to seek clarification on the law after discovering youth workers had begun relationships with young people.
Confusing matters further is the fact that, according to current legislation, Connexions personal advisers do come under the remit of the law.
In a letter replying to Whewell's concerns, an MoJ official stated: "We believe youth workers are unlikely to amount to being in loco parentis (in place of the parent) in the same way as teachers who have an authoritative role in their lives.
"Relationships of trust are widespread. It is therefore important to be rigorous about setting the parameters of the criminal law in this area. Drawing the offence too widely could prohibit so many relationships that the law would be unworkable."
But this leaves managers having to adhere to different policies for different staff in their workforce. Over the summer, Chyps is compiling evidence of the impact of this confusion to send to the MoJ to try to get the law changed.
Simon Carter, a spokesman for the Scout Association, says: "If you are in a position of trust, age doesn't come into it. We have two clear statements in our policy outlining that it is totally inappropriate to enter into a relationship with a young person in your care."
The Scout's Young People First code asks adults not to form a relationship with a young person that is an "abuse of trust".
"If that commitment was broken we would suspend them and record it so the person could not work in the movement again," adds Carter.
WHAT THE LAW SAYS
* The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000 introduced the new offence of "abuse of positions of trust"
* The main reason for the introduction of this legislation is the need to protect young people aged 16 and 17 who, even though they are above the age of consent, are considered vulnerable to sexual exploitation from adults who have a considerable amount of influence over their lives
* Section 21 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which came into force in May 2004, extended the list of positions of trust to include, among others, Connexions workers
* But under the Act professionals including youth and community workers, Scout leaders, clergymen and sports coaches cannot be prosecuted for "abuse of positions of trust"
A BREACH OF TRUST: WHY THE LAW MUST CHANGE
Dillon Hughes, strategic lead of Devon's integrated youth support service
When I worked for another local authority I did come across cases of youth workers embarking upon sexual relationships with young people. It tended to involve younger staff working with groups who are not that far from their own age.
The law needs to be strengthened or clarified in this area. At the moment anybody could set up a youth group. The first duty is to make sure they get the correct support and guidance about safeguarding, risk management, financial management and so on.
But equally we do need to be cautious, especially after the new primacy given to safeguarding following the Baby P case.
A new challenge is facing heads of integrated youth services. While there are many people who are not qualified but do a fantastic job, the potential still exists for people who don't have the best of intentions to call themselves youth workers.
Although we give clear guidance, the consequences for breaching that guidance are not the same as if youth workers were included in the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
And those individuals can bring local youth work into disrepute because in the press they will be called youth workers.
Any change in the law would require a definition of who is a youth worker and would probably mean youth workers having to register or get a licence. This is the case for other professionals, such as teachers and doctors.
